On Fixing How U.S. Elects Presidents: A Discussion

[Edge-]

Swapping de-industrialized poor people for tech-hubs and port cities doesn't seem like a change, except it swaps which parties social base or easier territory is the one that needs to be appealed to every four years.

Except it does literally no such thing. Right now it gives ADDED WEIGHT to those rural voters in low-population states. Their votes LITERALLY count for more than my vote does in CA, or someone's vote does in TX or FL.

It's swapping nothing of the sort in terms of "people". All it's swapping is that politicians might have to campaign where people actually are. That's it.

We are a federation of States, electing the leader of that federation of states? Also the EC was the agreed deal when states joined the union, reneging on the deal seems a bad move. Everyone agreed to the deal.

Yes, just like states are a "federation" of districts that elect their leader based on...a popular vote?!

And why would it be a bad deal? It's a 300 year old deal at this point, surely enough has changed in those 300 years that maybe the deal might need some updating, no? I mean, the founders even created a mechanism to update that "deal", Amendments to the Constitution, and it's been repeatedly updated.

This is some functionally Constitutional literalist nonsense that I'd expect out of Scalia or Thomas, if they also forgot that Amendments existed at least.

Much how the Supreme Court is subject to partisan capture, there is no non-partisan way to draw up districts.

Horse shit, and this is, again, the Republican argument for why partisan districts are "fair". Other countries, including Canada, have figured this out. Additionally, there are multiple states that already have non-partisan/bi-partisan districting in place. So it's been done here before, I don't know why you think that it can't be done.

Nope, the focus of campaigns becomes the big media markets, I.E. any major metro with a sea port and thus dominion over the media markets. Nothing really changes except who gets kowtowed to every four years.

You love to really dehumanize big cities, don't you? Always "big media markets!" but like...millions of people, including millions of people in poverty, too.

But I guess that because they live in those evil cities with all those wealthy elites they are awful too or something?

These are not great arguments.

[Blur4stuff]

Don't worry about Trump in 2024. Him and his entire family will be drowning in legal trouble long before that. You may see someone as inept and corrupt as Trump, but it really depends on how much his followers deflate by then.

Every sensible person hates the EC. The only people who like the EC are the ones who knows its unfairness helps them politically. They don't give two shits about small states and their voices being heard. The only way republicans will ever consider dumping the EC is if Texas/Florida become reliably dem.

It's not just the EC that makes the US system broken. From top to bottom it favors republicans. The senate is grossly imbalanced. The house is bad also because of it's cap on numbers and gerrymandering. Some of these problems can be fixed or mitigated, but it's going to be very difficult. It will take time.

[Antiganon]

So, I'm not usually a poster here, or anywhere on MMOChampion, so excuse the low count of posts and, perhaps my ignorance of certain subjects relating to politics; I've never voted in my entire life (28 years) until trump came into office. By the time I saw him step onto the podium the first time, I could tell that he wasn't fit for the office. He's been in it all for himself, and the last 4 years proves it in my opinion. He may have done the minimal amount of 'good', but its exactly that--minimal.

That being said... I've had some discussions with my immediate family who fears trump running again in 2024. Its a little ways off, but whats to say we won't have the chance to be in the exact same boat as we were these last 4 years, in 2024? What is stopping anyone like trump running again and eroding our systems?

It seems very flawed, and I'm not exactly sure how we (or Biden, since he will have the reigns soon) can fix this.

My proposal, would be extensive background tests, IQ tests... some kind of 'intelligence' test? I don't expect the president to always be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think they should be above pandering to conspiracy theories, and outright dangerous thinking. There should be some kind of 'moral' ground to be President of the United States. I know we've had presidents in the past who have done very heinous things on both sides of the aisle, but as we've gone through the centuries, America has 'generally' been one to lean toward 'morally good' decisions.

For example, according to a poster on Quora: what is stopping a convicted criminal in jail from running for President? This could be false, but curious about what you guys might say on this.

The system just seems like it really needs some adjusting for the present century, and so that we don't end up destroying ourselves or harming our time-tested allies.

TLDR: What can be realistically done to make sure we don't have wild and crazy presidents again that are dangerous to the world?

1. The qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution and can't realistically be changed. Over 35, natural born US Citizen. That's it. Adding any sort of required IQ test would be unconstitutional unless you pass an amendment, and that requires a ridiculous level of public and political support.

2. There are norms regarding Presidential candidates, such as releasing tax returns, examining their work history, previous writings, voting record (if they were previously in Congress) or political accomplishments (if they previously held state office like a Governor). Trump ignored all these norms, and the Republicans embraced his candidacy anyway. There is no legal remedy for political parties picking candidates you don't like.

3. The solution isn't to restrict who can run in the first place, the solution is to empower voters with knowledge so they don't vote for clearly unqualified corrupt morons. The solution is to make it as easy as possible to vote and to increase turnout as much as possible.

There is a separate but related issue in the the electoral college gives additional weight to votes in small rural states, which have lower quality education and smaller numbers of voters who do any kind of post secondary education. This is being fought via the NPVIC, which is really the only option without a constitutional amendment, and even that would be subject to judicial review.

[Theodarzna]

Except it does literally no such thing. Right now it gives ADDED WEIGHT to those rural voters in low-population states. Their votes LITERALLY count for more than my vote does in CA, or someone's vote does in TX or FL.

That was the deal, and predated CA as a state, and CA, FL and TX all joined under the same deal as WY, KY, and WV. Again, I don't put primacy entirely on popular votes for the federation head of a federation of States. Winning states should have some relevance.

Yes, just like states are a "federation" of districts that elect their leader based on...a popular vote?!

And why would it be a bad deal? It's a 300 year old deal at this point, surely enough has changed in those 300 years that maybe the deal might need some updating, no? I mean, the founders even created a mechanism to update that "deal", Amendments to the Constitution, and it's been repeatedly updated.

This is some functionally Constitutional literalist nonsense that I'd expect out of Scalia or Thomas, if they also forgot that Amendments existed at least.

What has changed seems to be a political party finds that it could consistently and without much effort probably win if the rules were written that way versus another way. Much as Republicans in California now want the state partitioned because they aren't winning in CA anymore. Though this energy was absent when the state was a GOP stronghold. This is a bit like the Abolish the Senate people.

For the record, in my absolutely perfect system, I'd say however the House breaks down should control the Presidency. Kind of like in Europe where the party or coalition that holds the legislative body also picks the Prime Minister.

Horse shit, and this is, again, the Republican argument for why partisan districts are "fair". Other countries, including Canada, have figured this out. Additionally, there are multiple states that already have non-partisan/bi-partisan districting in place. So it's been done here before, I don't know why you think that it can't be done.

All countries have means of drawing up districts but those bodies are always subject to ideological capture and partisan interest. There is no non-partisan answer to that question. Like as an absolute fact, just calling a council or body "non-Partisan" doesn't make it so. The SCOTUS is officially non-partisan, but lets be real, it is basically a second legislature with appointed members for life who are completely unaccountable.

You love to really dehumanize big cities, don't you? Always "big media markets!" but like...millions of people, including millions of people in poverty, too.

But I guess that because they live in those evil cities with all those wealthy elites they are awful too or something?

Calm down, I'm just going with the Andrew Yang stance mostly. You are taking this far too personally.

[Edge-]

That was the deal, and predated CA as a state, and CA, FL and TX all joined under the same deal as WY, KY, and WV. Again, I don't put primacy entirely on popular votes for the federation head of a federation of States. Winning states should have some relevance.

Again, times change and there are mechanisms to literally update that deal. It's been updated since states like CA, FL, an TX joined and given that nobody has decided to leave the union yet, I don't think that's gonna start any time soon.

Beyond that, "winning states" has relevance. That's what the Senate is for. The EC no longer functions as it was originally designed, and has long since outlived any usefulness it may have had.

What has changed seems to be a political party finds that it could consistently and without much effort probably win if the rules were written that way versus another way. Much as Republicans in California now want the state partitioned because they aren't winning in CA anymore. Though this energy was absent when the state was a GOP stronghold. This is a bit like the Abolish the Senate people.

I mean...if Republicans suddenly figure out how to appeal to the majority of Americans, it will benefit them now. And I won't be crying for the EC back, I'll be wondering why the Dems aren't working to appeal to more voters.

I don't give much of a shit about the conservatives in CA wanting to split the state up, that's a nonsense fantasy that has nothing to do with removing the EC. California's governor is already chosen via popular vote.

For the record, in my absolutely perfect system, I'd say however the House breaks down should control the Presidency. Kind of like in Europe where the party or coalition that holds the legislative body also picks the Prime Minister.

Which sorta like...de-facto removes the whole concept of the Executive branch and devalues the Senate, which is intended to be the "higher chamber". Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be opposed to a multi-party parliamentary system, especially if it includes the joys of the British system with their ceremonies and heckling. But what you propose would require a pretty significant restructuring of the government as a whole to make it work.

All countries have means of drawing up districts but those bodies are always subject to ideological capture and partisan interest. There is no non-partisan answer to that question. Like as an absolute fact, just calling a council or body "non-Partisan" doesn't make it so. The SCOTUS is officially non-partisan, but lets be real, it is basically a second legislature with appointed members for life who are completely unaccountable.

*fuckin sighs*

Yes Theo, we know that bias exists and nothing can ever be "perfectly" non-partisan. Nobody is talking about perfection, and that perfection is unobtainable is not a reason to strive for it. But those systems, as we've seen via analysis of the effectiveness of representation, especially for lower income folks and minorities who are usually blatantly exploited in partisan redistricting, those non-partisan/bi-partisan groups achieve improved outcomes.

I don't know why you'd be opposed to striving to improve things, especially for the "non affluent media elites" or whatever you love to demonize city dwellers as.

Calm down, I'm just going with the Andrew Yang stance mostly. You are taking this far too personally.

Giving it a listen now, curious to hear what he has to say.

Edit: Halfway through so far and the argument seems to be..."Amendments are hard, but we can try proportional votes which is attempting to achieve the same thing as a popular vote but still devalues votes in high population states and gives outsizes influence to votes in less populous states." which like...fine as a stepping stone (see what I did there?!) on the way to removing the EC and having the presidency be a popular vote just like governors races are in states.

Edit 2: And now on to the dreadful "Oh, you'll have to campaign where people are, versus where they aren't." argument which is like...no fuckin duh bros, that's how democracy works. You don't invest a ton of time into a ghost town with 100 residents left in it, you spend time where people actually live. Which happens to be bigger cities, which exist in states across the country.

[Theodarzna]

Giving it a listen now, curious to hear what he has to say.

Edit: Halfway through so far and the argument seems to be..."Amendments are hard, but we can try proportional votes which is attempting to achieve the same thing as a popular vote but still devalues votes in high population states and gives outsizes influence to votes in less populous states." which like...fine as a stepping stone (see what I did there?!) on the way to removing the EC and having the presidency be a popular vote just like governors races are in states.

Edit 2: And now on to the dreadful "Oh, you'll have to campaign where people are, versus where they aren't." argument which is like...no fuckin duh bros, that's how democracy works. You don't invest a ton of time into a ghost town with 100 residents left in it, you spend time where people actually live. Which happens to be bigger cities, which exist in states across the country.

Look, fundamentally we just don't agree on this. I have stated "Popular vote isn't prime in this" and you continue to appeal to it despite it not being what I currently consider supreme. First, I don't agree with an amendment should get rid of it and that States and Geographic locations should matter since its a federation of states. You don't think that should matter. And it seems you are falling back to just restating why you believe what you believe as if I too believe that the Popular Vote is supreme even when I said I didn't; and your rhetoric has thus become way more toxic as if insults and needling me will get me to agree with you, as exampled here.

I don't give much of a shit

*fuckin sighs*

Yes Theo, we know that...

Horse shit

You love to really dehumanize big cities, don't you?

We don't agree and you are going out with curse words and needling some insults and trying to what? Get a rise out of me? What is this? You are taking this WAY too personally. Calm down please.

[Elegiac]

That was the deal, and predated CA as a state, and CA, FL and TX all joined under the same deal as WY, KY, and WV.

So was slavery. Your argument is bad.

Look, fundamentally we just don't agree on this. I have stated "Popular vote isn't prime in this" and you continue to appeal to it despite it not being what I currently consider supreme.

Then your position is hypocritical because it runs directly counter to all the bullshit about self-determination you were posting during the peak of Brexit and how democracy needs to reign supreme over technocratic government.

[draynay]

We don't agree and you are going out with curse words and needling some insults and trying to what? Get a rise out of me? What is this? You are taking this WAY too personally. Calm down please.

I think something went awry with your quote formatting.

[Elegiac]

I think something went awry with your quote formatting.

Kinda detracts from the "look how mean people are being to me; my argument must be right" shtick, don't it?

[Felya]

I have stated "Popular vote isn't prime in this" and you continue to appeal to it despite it not being what I currently consider supreme.

Have you consider that this is the point of contention?

First, I don't agree with an amendment should get rid of it and that States and Geographic locations should matter since its a federation of states.

States do mater, in the house and senate... President is a federal election, not a state or district one.

You don't think that should matter.

Electoral college is not predicated on the idea that states mater.

And it seems you are falling back to just restating why you believe what you believe as if I too believe that the Popular Vote is supreme even when I said I didn't; and your rhetoric has thus become way more toxic as if insults and needling me will get me to agree with you, as exampled here.

Well.. no... I don’t restate the same thing over and over again, if I think the person I am speaking to believes it already. I doubt anyone does...

We don't agree and you are going out with curse words and needling some insults and trying to what? Get a rise out of me? What is this? You are taking this WAY too personally. Calm down please.

Iconoclasm... heard of it? When in the last 3 years did you become an originalist? or was it limited to the Barret nomination?

[Edge-]

So Yang's argument against an Amendment is because he thinks it will make Democrats look like sore losers who are trying to change the rules...that's a fuckin awful argument, and ignores that there have been pushes to abolish the EC since long before even Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and also ignores the history of how the EC has evolved and changed over the years to the point that it no longer really resembles what it was at its creation.

And that appears to be it. "The optics are bad" is his argument which...I mean, in a practical sense I agree with him on that. The optics aren't good. But ideologically I think that's a weak-ass cop-out and a terrible excuse. Because that's not an argument for keeping the EC.

[jonnysensible]

yang lol how many delegates did he get again?

[kaelleria]

The EC needs to go away... But that's not a possibility right now.

Our best bet is the National Popular Vote Compact in the short term.

[Felya]

yang lol how many delegates did he get again?

Want a thousand bucks but lose your Medicare, food stamps and all other social program benefits? Thousand bucks...

[Zan15]

Make voting start on Friday end on Monday. fuck the one day.
Make one of the days a Federally Mandated Holiday that forces allowance of time off with pay on any one of the 4 days to vote.


EC should be abolished.

Some states should be split up and some should be merged and some should be added.

[Monster Hunter]

Heres my multi-step how to modern democracy for countrys stuck 300 years in the past.

1. No powerful presidents, theres a reason why coibtries with powerful presidents have mostly become dictatorships (see russia and turky) its a stupid system, have no or seriously depower it to a figure head position like most modern democracys have.

2. Remove first past the post elections and impliment porportunal representation

3. Eradicate adversarial politics and implement coalition goverments as the norm, adversarial systems lead to flip floping with lottle change over the long term (whats done by lne party gets undone when the wind changes)

4. Break up the two party system, calling a two party system a democracy should be a laughable joke any way, america calling its self the bastion of democracy is the biggest self ego mastubation in history and no actual takes you guys seriously when you say it.

The new system should look like this.

A multi party house of representatives where the first to form a coalition of partys to form a goverment wins the position of priminister, the pm is the leader of the largest party in the coalition in the house, elected by members of said party and can be removed by said party at any time if wished.

The president is little more than a rubber stamp machine on laws made by the goverment and the house,

The Senate becomes your state rights body and democratic over sight machine, they get a number of senetors based on population and the senetors they put forward are elected by porportunal representation on longer terms than the house, they over see and ammend laws like how the house of Lords functions day to day in the UK.

The judiciary is to be divorced from politics, supreme court judges are to be elected by a bipartisan oversight commity based on life work, merit and seniority, and they serve terms not life terms.

Do that and the USA might be less of a complete embaresment to the western world.

[PC2]

So Yang's argument against an Amendment is because he thinks it will make Democrats look like sore losers who are trying to change the rules...that's a fuckin awful argument, and ignores that there have been pushes to abolish the EC since long before even Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and also ignores the history of how the EC has evolved and changed over the years to the point that it no longer really resembles what it was at its creation.

And that appears to be it. "The optics are bad" is his argument which...I mean, in a practical sense I agree with him on that. The optics aren't good. But ideologically I think that's a weak-ass cop-out and a terrible excuse. Because that's not an argument for keeping the EC.

Yang is right here and you shouldn't care that much about the technical details of the voting system versus actual policy. If you have confidence that your policy principles are objectively correct then the voting details won't matter because over the long-term you would be able to convince people to change their vote regardless of what type of voting system is in place. Needing to finagle with the voting system implies that you don't believe in the power of your ideas to change minds within the system and therefore have to change the official rules to get what you want.

But ideologically I think that's a weak-ass cop-out and a terrible excuse.

Ideology should be about ideas within a voting system and you shouldn't even need an ideology about the minutiae of voting systems.

[Easo]

A national holiday for voting seems to be an easy one. I dont think most people would object to it

That's easy - just scream loudly that it hurts economy not to work for one day and people will not support it.

Yeah, let's just make everything a simple popularity contest! I mean, who cares about tyranny of the majority (think about if the majority was against YOUR stance/candidate/etc).

Seriously, take a civics class, it's embarrassing to read people advocating for mob rule.

You too should take that class. Democracy de facto means that majority rules, it is the basic logic. You cannot decide anything if the people can't agree to it, there gotta be that one person in charge.
What, is tyranny of minority better? Because that is what happened in 2016 - the minority won. (fine, it is debatable if that can be called minority, still people than the other half decided for everyone).
Democracy, however, also takes notes of the wishes of minority, which is what people tend to forget.

[Felya]

Yang is right here and you shouldn't care that much about the technical details of the voting system versus actual policy.

What happens when majority of Americans keep voting for your policy to the toon of millions extra votes, but keep losing election? Start supporting policy that ignores the majority, but works to win electoral? How is that the will of the people?

Edit: People keep posting how Medicare for all and the environment is important to majority of people... they keep asking, why do we not get what we keep saying we want? Well... you are asking the wrong question... Why do you live in a state that isn’t a swing state, if policy matters to you? If you want Medicare for all, why do you live in California, instead of Florida?

[Monster Hunter]

What happens when majority of Americans keep voting for your policy to the toon of millions extra votes, but keep losing election? Start supporting policy that ignores the majority, but works to win electoral? How is that the will of the people?

Edit: People keep posting how Medicare for all and the environment is important to majority of people... they keep asking, why do we not get what we keep saying we want? Well... you are asking the wrong question... Why do you live in a state that isn’t a swing state, if policy matters to you? If you want Medicare for all, why do you live in California, instead of Florida?

I saw a great youtube video on why america is essentially stuck 50 years behind europe policy wise, and the short answer to sum up the video was the terrible voting and election system.

It went into great detail on how the system essentially props up the republican party without the republican party needing to modernise its platform and win elections without the popular vote.

Its why you just really can't compare a European conservative party to the USA's republicans, i mean of we get really into the details, on issue voting history and policy the UK's so called Version of trump, bojo is actually slightly more left on many issues than Biden americas left wing candidate.

America is systemically broken, and neither the dems or republicans have the will to make the sweeping chabges it needs to modernise because its a system that serves them, both party bitch about the system when in opposition but as soon as they get power, reform and real change is suddenly forgotten.

Thus america is stuck perpetualy fightibg the same social, economical and religious battles that there European counterparts settled 50 and in some cases over 100 years ago.

I mean the NHS, the UKs free health care system is 72 years old, its nearly a 3rd the age of the USA as a nation, and in the time its existed mostly under conservative goverments, if after all that time, if after you can see year on year it being cheeper per person than the US system, if after 72 years of uninterupted quallty service that has made the institution so bellved by the people of the UK that to even hint at changing it is political suicide, what possible case can be made to america that health care, like fire and police should be a national service ????

There is litteraly 72 years of evidence the social medicine is better, cheaper more economical and more growth producing for a nation, how it xan still be the case that american republicans can bat that away by just pulling out the spoopy socialism word is beyond me, in the 72 years of the NHS over 50 have been under conservatives so no one can argue its a slippery slope to socialism or communism.....

But i guess thats the thing isnt it, the argument has been won in the USA and likley for a long time, its not the people that need convincing, its the system that needs changing so American can come into the modern world, and it needs to be done soon, america is back sliding into obscurity, its slow, you need to look at the long view, but conpare the USA how it was ib the 90s, economically, on the global stage, its respect and its presance... every decade it looks as a nation more and more archaic and not in the charming tourist castles and palaces way, its in the how do you not have these basic rights yet way.